Ugly Aircraft Contest

[Bibs]

Beriev Bartini VVA 14

Some info here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartini_Beriev_VVA-14

[Rich H]

Lun class Ekranoplan those things on it's back are anti ship missile launchers!

[Sport 160]

Nuts, you beat me to it, I just found that very link and came back here to post it.

It's cheating to post up a picture of the plane with the engines and wings removed

Edit to add: Uglier with the engine and wings though....

Edited July 5, 2011 by Sport 160

[redshift]

Then there's the Navy prototype, WTF Mark1

[comem47]

looks like the Liberty Bell was pressed into service.

[Iconic Ride]

The "expanded" Bartini mos def scores in the mid nines.

This thread has been the best weight loss program I've seen in ages.

[Scotty C]

What is that? I must know.

thanks for asking, i was thinking the same

[Rick Edwards]

An early attempt at a Typhoon !

[Rich H]

Valkyrie supersonic transport.

[molemot]

TRANSPORT???? The Valkyrie was intended to be a bomber...and an amazing piece of kit it was, too...from Wiki...

The North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie was the prototype version of the proposed B-70 nuclear-armed deep-penetration bomber for the United States Air Force's (USAF) Strategic Air Command. Designed by North American Aviation in the late 1950s, the Valkyrie was a large six-engined aircraft able to fly Mach 3+ at an altitude of 70,000 feet (21,000 m), which would have allowed it to avoid interceptors, the only effective anti-bomber weapon at the time.

The introduction of effective high-altitude surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), the program's high development costs, and changes in the technological environment with the introduction of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)s led to the cancellation of the B-70 program in 1961. Although the proposed fleet of operational B-70 bombers was canceled, two prototype aircraft were built as the XB-70A and used in supersonic test flights from 1964 to 1969. One prototype crashed following a midair collision in 1966; the other is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Ohio.

During the period that the original proposals were being studied, advances in supersonic flight were proceeding rapidly. The "long thin delta" was establishing itself as a preferred planform for supersonic flight, replacing earlier designs like the swept wing and compound sweep as seen on designs like the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (and the earlier NAA design for WS-110). Engines able to cope with higher temperatures and widely varying inlet air speeds were also under design, allowing for sustained supersonic speeds. By March 1957, engine development and wind tunnel testing had progressed such that the potential for all-supersonic flight appeared feasible – the cruise-and-dash approach that had resulted in huge designs was no longer needed.[17]

The project decided that the aircraft would fly at speeds up to Mach 3 for the entire mission, instead of a combination of subsonic cruise and supersonic dash of the aircraft designs in the previous year. Zip fuel was to be burned in the engine's afterburner to increase range.[17][19] Both North American and Boeing returned new designs with very long fuselages and large delta wings. They differed primarily in engine layout; the NAA design arranged its six engines in a semi-circular duct under the rear fuselage, while the Boeing design used separate podded engines located individually on pylons below the wing.[16]

NAA's final WS-110A proposal, built as the XB-70North American had scoured the literature to find any additional advantage. The company found the relatively-unknown compression lift concept, which used the shock wave generated by the nose or other sharp points on the aircraft as a source of high pressure air.[20] By carefully positioning the wing in relation to the shock, the shock's high pressure could be captured on the bottom of the wing and generate additional lift. To take maximum advantage of this effect, they redesigned the underside of the aircraft to feature a large triangular intake area far forward of the engines, better positioning the shock in relation to the wing.[21] North American improved the design with a set of drooping wing tip panels that were lowered at high speed. This helped trap the shock wave under the wing between the downturned wing tips, and also added more vertical surface to the aircraft to improve directional stability at high speeds.[20] NAA's solution had an additional advantage, as it decreased the surface area of the rear of the wing when they were moved into their high speed position. This helped offset the rearward shift of the center of pressure, or "average lift point" with increasing speeds under normal conditions, causing an increasing nose-down trim. When the wing tips were drooped the surface area at the rear of the wings was lowered, moving the lift forward and counteracting this effect.[22]

The buildup of heat due to skin friction during sustained supersonic flight had to be addressed. During a Mach 3 cruise the aircraft would reach an average of 450 °F (230 °C), although there were portions as high as 650 °F (340 °C). NAA proposed building their design out of a sandwich panels, consisting of two thin sheets of stainless steel brazed to opposite faces of a honeycomb-shaped foil core. Expensive titanium would be used only in high-temperature areas like the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer, and the nose.[23] For cooling the interior, the XB-70 pumped fuel en route to the engines through heat exchangers.[24]

On 30 August 1957, the Air Force decided that enough data was available on the NAA and Boeing designs that a competition could begin. On 18 September, the Air Force issued operational requirements which called for a cruising speed of Mach 3.0 to 3.2, an over-target altitude of 70,000-75,000 ft (21,300-22,700 m), a range of up to 10,500 mi (16,900 km), and a gross weight not to exceed 490,000 lb (222,000 kg). The aircraft would have to use the hangars, runways and handling procedures used by the B-52. On 23 December 1957, the North American proposal was declared the winner of the competition, and on 24 January 1958, a contract was issued for Phase 1 development.[13]

In February 1958, the proposed bomber was designated B-70,[13] with the prototypes receiving the "X" experimental prototype designation. The name "Valkyrie" was the winning submission in spring 1958, selected from 20,000 entries in a USAF "Name the B-70" contest.[25] The Air Force approved an 18-month program acceleration in March 1958 that rescheduled the first flight to December 1961.[13] But in the fall of 1958 the service announced that this acceleration would not be possible due to lack of funding.[26] In December 1958, a Phase II contract was issued. The mockup of the B-70 was reviewed by the Air Force in March 1959. Provisions for air-to-surface missiles and external fuel tanks were requested afterward.[27] At the same time North American was developing the F-108 supersonic interceptor. To reduce program costs, the F-108 would share two of the engines, the escape capsule, and some smaller systems with the B-70.

Like the TSR-2 of fond memory, it's fascinating to speculate what it would have been like to fly in service.......

[Rich H]

bomber then

I wouldn't put it down as ugly though.

[Vulcan Grey]

XB-70 was awesome!

Russians tried to copy it too... Sukhoi T-4

Here's a better view of the XB-70

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vulcan Grey

[The Veg]

I saw the one remaining XB-70 up close when I was a lad of eight years at the Air Force Museum in Ohio. I've also read a bit about it, and I remember one article saying that the guys who flew them really really liked them and were very sad when the program was cancelled.

Speaking of prototypes/ones-of-a-kind at the USAF museum, this ties in with the brief discussion of ejection techniques in another thread...the museum is also home to this odd number:

The X-3 was one of those weird ones that ejected out the bottom of the cockpit.

[molemot]

The Douglas X-3!!!! I made a plastic kit model of that beast....looks like it's doing Mach 4 standing still!! Sadly, the real thing was desperately underpowered and didn't do too well. Shape is still enough to make me dribble.... The Starfighter F-104 owes much to the wing configuration, and the tail...which was why the ejection seat worked downwards; I never fancied that, myself....instant Moley fencepost.....

As for the Valkyrie...wow, what a machine...just imagine, in 1960, cruising at Mach 3, riding on compression lift contained by the drooping wingtips (they came down a looong way in flight).... crikey, you'd think that by now we'd be on Mars, at least....

[The Veg]

I built a plastic model X-3 too; it was how I first learned about the thing itself as well as the USAF museum, which as it turned out was on the way to our vacation destination the coming summer. Seeing the real thing was one of 'those moments...'

The 104 (which was often called 'the manned missile') had bottom-eject too, and cables that attached to 'stirrups' the pilot wore. The cables would yank his feet back to the seat when the eject fired, to keep his legs from being caught in the cockpit on the way down. No fencepost though, at least as long as the thing functions properly.

[gghc87]

[Iconic Ride]

Oh, behaaaave!

Alexander Calder's 1973 "Flying Colors" earlier example, commisioned by Braniff Airways. Note that the name of the airline does not appear anywhere on the aircraft.

Is this "ugly" or beautiful? Just like trying to decide whether to make a move on the babe sitting on the stool next to you in the pub, depends on how many pints you've had.

And speaking of the X-3, guess who made the cover of this month's Air & Space magazine?

[rocket63]

[molemot]

Douglas X-3.....just found this:

http://www.airspacemag.com/video/The-X-3-Stiletto.html

[Bibs]

[Iconic Ride]

Now we're talking! Nice find, Bibs.

During the early 1930s, a team of scientists led by Konstantin Kalinin tried to solve some of the most complex problems in aviation design. Thus the idea to create the Kalinin K-7 was born. It would be a plane of huge proportions, especially designed for overseas flights.Sometime during the development of a design which might allow such a task to be performed, arose the concept of placing the cargo - people and objects - on the actual wings of the airplane, leading up to a variety of drawings and the concept of the flying wing. The airplane was even tested in a wind tunnel in 1928 and a protoype was begun in 1929. The proportions were staggering at the time - a 53 m (173 ft 11 in) wingspan and a 454 m² (4,886.8 ft²) wing area. Only one aircraft was actually built, but it was enough to stir up the imaginations of many enthusiasts.

These images are mere mad ravings that could never be built, yet they are truly impressive.

Read more: http://obviousmag.or...l#ixzz1lw7KbI00

[molemot]

I would respectfully point out that, if it can't fly, then - no matter how astonishingly ugly - it can't be classifed as an AEROPLANE. Last year I inspected the Maginot Line, and some of those fortifications are more likely to fly than THAT thing!!

[Iconic Ride]

Yes, but was the Maginot Line tested in a wind tunnel, John?

[molemot]

I think I'd have been pretty windy myself...being in one of the cupolas with a howitzer in operational condition was quite an experience. On the whole, though, I'd have been even windier if asked to go fly that behemoth. Wind tunnel??? It would need a wind cave!!

Edited February 11, 2012 by molemot

[Iconic Ride]

Vickers Velos, circa 1927

The Ugliest Plane in the World

This Canadian Vickers Velos airplane is infamous as the ugliest and most worthless plane in the world. Not only does it have the distinction of appearing in Popular Aviation's "Ugly Plane Gallery," but even the Royal Canadian Air Force (who commissioned it as an "Aeroplane for Photographic Surveying" in 1926) called it "most unsuitable for any operation." Only one was ever made, and it flew for part of the year in 1928.

According to the Mark Perry, who nominated the Velos as Ugliest Plane in Popular Aviation. What happens when airplanes are designed by committees (No, really, a Canadian government committee laid down the specs for this turkey). Not only does it looking like a flying streetcar, but this Canadian Vickers Velos is on record as being the worst aircraft ever built in Canada - a complete dog. The test pilots flew it only under protest, and it was known as "The Dead Loss" around the factory.

A face only a mother could love...